Women's Studies Must Die

[Safety]

Would you like a hanky?

I'm sorry if you're unable to compete.

Does Camille post here?

I'm not necessarily against ad homs, just hypocrites who don't have the balls to admit that that's what they do.

LoL, damn.

[Peter1469]

Is Camille Page voted off the woman island?

[Chris]

Would you like a hanky?

I'm sorry if you're unable to compete.

Does Camille post here?

I'm not necessarily against ad homs, just hypocrites who don't have the balls to admit that that's what they do.

You seem to misunderstand the meaning of ad hom. I'll leave it that way, it's funny though.

[alexa]

Is Camille Page voted off the woman island?

Ask Chris.

There's no rule that one can't be a woman and a shrill harpy at the same time.

[Chris]

It's not much different than studying in areas like Italian studies, or Islamic studies, or Jewish studies or ancient civilizations, etc.. Women represent a portion of society/culture. They are going to have a different history than men in a lot of ways. They are going to be represented in different cultures in different ways. There are biological differences that have far-reaching effects (including into the arts). Psychological differences certainly exist. Social status, social change, societal norms... It is a humanity/social science mash-up that focuses on a common topic.

Except women's studies are not about women as those other studies are about various topics. Women's studies doesn't engage in scholarly work. It's political and acceptance is a matter of conforming to a quest for power. That's the complaint here in general throughout the humanities and more and more STEM.

[Chris]

Is Camille Page voted off the woman island?

A lot of feminists hate her. I doubt she cares. She'll continue to be outspoken.

[Chris]

Ask Chris.

There's no rule that one can't be a woman and a shrill harpy at the same time.

^^proof

[Marcus Aurelius]

Is getting a degree in theology a waste?

Or arts?

I don't disagree that stuff like this isn't... productive, what do you do with it? And I do think it's identity politics to some degree but it's arts basically, that part of our cultural existence that defines us as humans.

I don't see the big deal.

This is a good question. That is, why do we consider some partially non-rational pursuits legitimate, and others not so much? I've been thinking about this since you posted last night, and one thing that comes to mind is how reason and logic are used (or rejected) in the course of different pursuits.

Many official Gender Studies texts, like the ones Prof Fiamengo cites in the first video, vehemently insist that differences between men and women are social constructs, despite the overwhelming mountain of empirical evidence to the contrary. The GS position is non-rational by a rejection of the data. Many of the authors of those texts, when confronted with the empirical data, are quick to condemn logic and reason as tools of patriarchal oppression. This kind of position is non-rational by its resounding rejection of scientific data, and its subsequent construction of a schema based on imagination. Logic and reason are used as spices, if you will, to support that imaginative construct, but they are not necessary, and if they begin to contradict any of the tenets of the GS faith, they can be dispensed with.

Art also has a non-rational foundation, in the sense that the artist spends his entire life learning to express something about his inner spirit, something which cannot be expressed by a mere statement of empirical fact. But that is not a rejection of empirical fact. It is a transcendence of rationality in which reason and logic can still function. All great art, be it painting or music or literature or architecture, relies heavily on logic and mathematics for its formal construction. The study of art is not a negation of reason in the way that GS is.

Another thing that comes to mind is the way in which GS is highly politicized. GS does not exist in and of itself, for its own sake. One is expected to become an activist for the Left from the "knowledge" they glean from such a program.

In contrast, art must always exist in and of itself, or it ceases to be art. It must have no purpose whatsoever other than the expression of the artist's inmost being. Art that has a purpose becomes advertising, or propaganda. (Which is not to say that advertising and/or propaganda are bad things, but they are not art-for-art's-sake.) One goes to art school or conservatory to become a painter or musician. One goes to graphic design school to become a maker of ads.

When it comes to theology, that's a stickier question. After all, GS does seem to have many of the earmarks of a theology. If anyone has any ideas on that, I'd like to hear them.

[Chris]

This is a good question. That is, why do we consider some partially non-rational pursuits legitimate, and others not so much? I've been thinking about this since you posted last night, and one thing that comes to mind is how reason and logic are used (or rejected) in the course of different pursuits.

Many official Gender Studies texts, like the ones Prof Fiamengo cites in the first video, vehemently insist that differences between men and women are social constructs, despite the overwhelming mountain of empirical evidence to the contrary. The GS position is non-rational by a rejection of the data. Many of the authors of those texts, when confronted with the empirical data, are quick to condemn logic and reason as tools of patriarchal oppression. This kind of position is non-rational by its resounding rejection of scientific data, and its subsequent construction of a schema based on imagination. Logic and reason are used as spices, if you will, to support that imaginative construct, but they are not necessary, and if they begin to contradict any of the tenets of the GS faith, they can be dispensed with.

Art also has a non-rational foundation, in the sense that the artist spends his entire life learning to express something about his inner spirit, something which cannot be expressed by a mere statement of empirical fact. But that is not a rejection of empirical fact. It is a transcendence of rationality in which reason and logic can still function. All great art, be it painting or music or literature or architecture, relies heavily on logic and mathematics for its formal construction. The study of art is not a negation of reason in the way that GS is.

Another thing that comes to mind is the way in which GS is highly politicized. GS does not exist in and of itself, for its own sake. One is expected to become an activist for the Left from the "knowledge" they glean from such a program.

In contrast, art must always exist in and of itself, or it ceases to be art. It must have no purpose whatsoever other than the expression of the artist's inmost being. Art that has a purpose becomes advertising, or propaganda. (Which is not to say that advertising and/or propaganda are bad things, but they are not art-for-art's-sake.) One goes to art school or conservatory to become a painter or musician. One goes to graphic design school to become a maker of ads.

When it comes to theology, that's a stickier question. After all, GS does seem to have many of the earmarks of a theology. If anyone has any ideas on that, I'd like to hear them.

Many of the authors of those texts, when confronted with the empirical data, are quick to condemn logic and reason as tools of patriarchal oppression.

Exactly. That is the basic postmodern argument. Hicks is one who provides the historical development of such a philosophy.

Ironically, the aim of that philosophy is power, another postmodern contradiction.

[Adelaide]

Except women's studies are not about women as those other studies are about various topics. Women's studies doesn't engage in scholarly work. It's political and acceptance is a matter of conforming to a quest for power. That's the complaint here in general throughout the humanities and more and more STEM.

Students have a surprising amount of free will when it comes to investigating areas of study at the upper levels. Just because I was curious, I took a look at some journals last night to see what academics are talking about in relation to women's studies and yes, many articles are politically motivated but an interesting amount are not. Even some that appear to follow the "SJW" dialogue veer off into thoughts and ideas that you would not hear a "SJW" talk about.

Have you ever actually looked at articles in various journals related to women's studies or gender studies, or simply the ones that make the mainstream news? The perception of the field may be highly influenced by what is cherrypicked from academic resources. It is no different than other fields, simply more sensational perhaps because of the nature of the content being cherrypicked.